City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[havefaith]

This is a great read, onwards amd upwards :-)

I was enthralled by Ferran Soriano’s 8-minute talk as he laid out Man City plans

The Manchester City CEO spoke ahead of the club’s latest title-winning documentary.

www.manchesterworld.uk

 

[mancboy]

Fair point but the Americans do have a knack of selling stuff and I think they'd surround each game with so much razzmatazz it'd draw people in . A bit like Sky but more .....nauseating

But once again its the sustainability of it, that works for one off games and special games but not over the long term

 

[mancboy]

No expert on this by any means, but I wonder if "globalisation" of the game is more popular where there is less cultural investment in football. The more culturally invested, the less interested in change. I am thinking England, possibly Germany and further afield Argentina, Brazil, Mexico. I don't know the situation in Spain and Italy. But this "globalisation" is definitely being pushed by people who gave become rich though sports-manipulators from a country that has a completely domestic and un-ESM view of its major sports and little cultural attachment to football. The US, of course. The game will be better when these US owners are put back in their box, imho.

I completely agree but they have been trying to do this with football for years and they have never managed to crack america and never will.

 

[mancboy]

They would have to create small groups to try & dilute the shittiness. Maybe even like IPL where players move each year….

I’m feeling sick as I write it.

go and wash your mouth out, fuck that for a game of soldiers

 

[slbsn]

It's not a 'fraud case' by the way.

I'll let Stefan speak for himself but having been in agreement with him over this initially, it's now clear to me that the two are very closely linked. The published partial final verdict of the APT tribunal revealed that 'certain clubs' felt that we had ignored IAS 24, requiring us to declare any related party transactions. Hence we got the wholly manufactured associated party rules.

The alleged PL rule breaches specifically mention sponsorships and related parties. It's therefore quite clear that the APT rules introduced in 2021, and amended earlier this year, were linked to the PL charges.

I don't agree with this at all.

Nothing in the APT case could save City if they had faked their biggest contracts for a decade and then lied repeatedly to the outside world including auditors and multiple other parties.

We always knew why the APTs were introduced (for Newcastle and because nobody believed certain parties were not related and/or related was not a sufficiently strong test). There was nothing revelatory there.

If there was a point here City would not have waited to the Feb 2024 changes before launching their challenge. The APT challenge specifically followed amendments that City warned went too far. They did not challenge 2021 APT either then or after Feb 2023.

The 115 breaches are not about being related or fair value in the absence of there being concealment of some relevant facts (such as outright lies about whether Etihad is related). The idea the PL could undermine the auditors over 14 years (not to mention UEFA and CAS) as to the related party aspects of that is not plausible. And those matters would not be challengeable now in any event in my view due to statute of limitations. They are about serious allegations of false accounting that even if the whole PSR had been found unlawful would not save City if the allegations were proved.

In short, construing this connection in this way is wrong. Any connection is far more subtle.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don't agree with this at all.

Nothing in the APT case could save City if they had faked their biggest contracts for a decade and then lied repeatedly to the outside world including auditors and multiple other parties.

We always knew why the APTs were introduced (for Newcastle and because nobody believed certain parties were not related and/or related was not a sufficiently strong test). There was nothing revelatory there.

If there was a point here City would not have waited to the Feb 2024 changes before launching their challenge. The APT challenge specifically followed amendments that City warned went too far. They did not challenge 2021 APT either then or after Feb 2023.

The 115 breaches are not about being related or fair value in the absence of there being concealment of some relevant facts (such as outright lies about whether Etihad is related). The idea the PL could undermine the auditors over 14 years (not to mention UEFA and CAS) as to the related party aspects of that is not plausible. And those matters would not be challengeable now in any event in my view due to statute of limitations. They are about serious allegations of false accounting that even if the whole PSR had been found unlawful would not save City if the allegations were proved.

In short, construing this connection in this way is wrong. Any connection is far more subtle.

But it's clear there's a connecting thread.

We now know that some clubs pressed for the introduction of APT rules because they felt that we were deliberately flouting IAS 24. I absolutely agree with you that there's no possible interpretation of that standard which makes City & Etihad related parties.

We still don't know exact details of the PL charges but they specifically mention sponsorships and related parties. It's therefore likely that the issue of related parties is one of the core issues at the heart of those charges (although it's largely irrelevant if the Etihad contract is held to be legitimate and fair value).

I accept that the timescale of the APT rules' introduction is more likely to be related to the Newcastle takeover. But there's clearly (in my view) a link between the PL charges and their mention of related parties, and the APT rules, which are an attempt to get round IAS24.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Fair point but the Americans do have a knack of selling stuff and I think they'd surround each game with so much razzmatazz it'd draw people in . A bit like Sky but more .....nauseating

Or totally put people off with the shite they offer ?

 

[cheekybids]

I think they would aim to focus on individual star players not teams . Fans would be loyal to the player who would move about so more viewers for different teams.

Can even see a time when tv viewers can vote on certain aspects of the TV offer on premium texts like talent shows . Best strip ? Controversial decisions ? Pundit A vs Pundit B .

I'll get my coat

Super Sunday with Simon Cowel & Ant & Dec

Viewers vote on who won & which player gets ejected.

 

[Matt Diablo]

Super Sunday with Simon Cowel & Ant & Dec

Viewers vote on who won & which player gets ejected.

Jokes . . . but with the stark reality of life still plausible?? If so it's game, set and match for me

 

[slbsn]

But it's clear there's a connecting thread.

We now know that some clubs pressed for the introduction of APT rules because they felt that we were deliberately flouting IAS 24. I absolutely agree with you that there's no possible interpretation of that standard which makes City & Etihad related parties.

We still don't know exact details of the PL charges but they specifically mention sponsorships and related parties. It's therefore likely that the issue of related parties is one of the core issues at the heart of those charges (although it's largely irrelevant if the Etihad contract is held to be legitimate and fair value).

I accept that the timescale of the APT rules' introduction is more likely to be related to the Newcastle takeover. But there's clearly (in my view) a link between the PL charges and their mention of related parties, and the APT rules, which are an attempt to get round IAS24.

If they were connected or dependent, it simply would not have played out like this. City would have introduced those relevant points in the main case as defence. You are thinking far too much about the mention of related parties in the press release. We know for sure what the core of the sponsorship allegations are and it is not that Etihad were simply related.

And it is not a case of flouting IAS24. It is broader than that. The intent of APT was to broaden the rules beyond related parties even if disclosed to be related.